Butler Bulldogs (5-1) vs SLU (5-1) - 12/1/2018

Discussion in 'Butler Basketball' started by butlerdawgs123, Nov 29, 2018.

  1. Dawg Guy

    Dawg Guy Active Member

    Money:
    $431
    "Should've won" in what sense? We got beat by 12 points.

    The shots didn't go down, but how many of them were wide open? Our offense just doesn't get good shots against athletic teams. Each game against a decent opponent is more or less a battle of will the other team lay an egg down the stretch and/or will Baldwin hit enough clutch shots for us to win. With past coaches, we have gotten points down the stretch through set plays and relied on smarts and defense the rest of the way. With our current offense it is much more on the individuals to go out and get a bucket, but we are seeing that the only two who can do that are Kamar and Paul.
     
    bmradio99 likes this.
  2. Dawg Guy

    Dawg Guy Active Member

    Money:
    $431
    You know that they only had 1 more field goal than us, but had 5 more assists, right? They also shot 15 more free throws which tells you they were more active/aggressive around the hoop (and playing @ home). Yes - we missed shots, but you have to get open ones to have a better chance at making them. That means not jacking contested threes, but getting some easy ones at the rim. Our offense does a poor job (as of now) at getting people open and getting them the ball in the right spots to score.
     
  3. Hinkle

    Hinkle Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $7,035
    Butler missed a lot of threes. Butler also missed 15 layups, the easiest kinds of misses for the defense to grab.

    In any event, I wasn't implying that Butler is elite at rebounding. They're not. But to say rebounding was the big issue or even a big issue Saturday is just not borne out in the numbers. It'd be like pointing out that we turned it over on 20% of the possessions. That's not good, but it's not awful, and it was still better than St. Louis's rate. And if we'd turned it over on 15% of possessions instead (an elite mark), that'd have only gotten us an extra three possessions - not enough to make up for a 12 point deficit.

    I guess I just don't understand why everyone is so aghast at the suggestion that we lost because shots didn't go in.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    wazthree, shoeevv, bwesson15 and 2 others like this.
  4. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $2,589
    Ok they had 9 assists, we had 4. Fine. Again if our shots go down we get close, and the number of their assists doesn’t help us analyze ourselves. You’re not incorrect to identify it as an area improvement, but it hardly cost us the game.

    This game was below the 99% percentile of games since 2002 in both effective field goal % and offensive efficiency.

    It’s also hard to logically justify that we have significant failures both at attacking the basket and getting open shots. Foul shots seem like they would be inversely correlated with open shots, since it’s extremely difficult to draw a foul on an open basket.

    Sean, Henry, Christian, JGB And AT aren’t there to shoot contested 3’s but they combined to shoot 17 of them so I think that we were actually ok getting open perimeter shots.

    Where I really agree with you is free throw differential. We’ve only had 19 games with an opposing ft rate at least what it was on Saturday and gone 6-13 in those games. The amount of times they went to the line was also outside of 2 standard deviations for us. You have to think that it is probably partially reflective of the gameplay considering how poorly they shoot there and us trailing late. We also go to the line more frequently in 80% of our games, so yeah, you’re totally right there was a huge disparity there. However, we do have a winning percentage above .500 when we go to the line less, so that alone did not cost us the game. Combined with our bad shooting, it starts to glow a lot more.

    That being said, this has been an ongoing problem and we’ve maintained a borderline elite offense throughout Lavalls tenure.

    Despite your post making very strong arguments especially regarding free throw rates, I still find it hard to emphasize much beyond the fact that we have only shot this badly from the floor 4 times in our last nearly 600 games and never won any of them.

    Every single factor besides the shooting has occurred before and we’ve been able win. We’ve never overcome shooting this badly. The fact we have shot this badly this infrequently suggests that we have shooters that can make the shots that they took, they just didn’t.



    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    godogs91 likes this.
  5. godogs91

    godogs91 Active Member

    Money:
    $3,167
    24 of the shots were from 3, which is right on the average for the season. Not nearly all of them were contested; they just didn't fall. There were 40 2-point shots taken: 10-25 on layups, and 4-15 on other 2's. Bottom line, I was worried if they could hit water if they had fallen out of a boat on Saturday. Was some of it due to good D by SLU? Certainly. But not nearly all of it. Bad shooting nights happen to everyone. When they happen to everyone on the same night, you get the result we saw.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    BUcheer and dawgs2014 like this.
  6. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $2,589
    Our guards (kelan) was our leading defensive rebounder last year too and we were fine.

    Wideman was slightly better than Fowler is this year but Brunk is slightly better than Fowler was last year so it’s likely our rebounding should be about the same.

    Here’s our numbers this year:
    Defensive reb % numbers
    1. Kamar 20.1%
    2. Baddley 14.9%
    3. Fowler 14.8%
    4. Brunk 13.7 %




    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  7. Irishdawg

    Irishdawg Banned User VIP Member

    Money:
    $72
    They had their worst shooting night in 4 years, and Saturday's was probably even worse because it wasn't a back to back situation like in 2014 where they were coming off a big win, shooting in an unusual environment, etc. I do think that at least some of the shots that PJ and Baldwin took were ill advised, but that happens every game and we have to live with that because some nights those shots will go in.

    I don't have a problem, and in fact I hope it's that they were just incredibly unlucky shooting the basketball on a given day. I also don't believe however that simply pointing to the rebounding numbers is indicative that the team played hard or smart. Baldwin especially needs to be smarter with the ball, because outside of the MTSU and Florida games, he's averaging 5 turnovers a game. Kelan Martin had a similar usage rate to Baldwin last season, and Baldwin already has had more games with 5 or more turnovers this year than Martin had all of last year. I'm not saying they're in the same role because Baldwin obviously is more of a facilitator, or at least they're trying to get him there, but that's just how important Baldwin is to the efficiency of the team as constructed right now, and he's not producing, and that's one area that needs to get cleaned up, regardless whether or not his shot is falling.
     
  8. bumba

    bumba Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $7,463
    Through 7 games year-to-date, our 6'0 shooting guard is leading the team in total number of rebounds. He's already carry the weight of the entire team. Just think something has to change.
     
  9. Irishdawg

    Irishdawg Banned User VIP Member

    Money:
    $72
    They're currently rebounding 5% less of opponent shot attempts than last year's group. I do think the majority of this is due to personnel differences on the wing. Having a 6'7, 220 lbs guy at the 4 and a 6'6, 190 lbs guy at the 3 the majority of the time is very different from 6'6, 195 lbs at the 4 and 6'2 or 6'4, 180 lbs at the 3. They're doing what they can in this area, but it's going to be an issue at least until Tucker becomes eligible, and likely beyond unless he's a more physical presence than the sense I've gotten from the coaches when they speak about him.
     
  10. Insane Dawg

    Insane Dawg Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $12,637
    SLU had a 6'6" physical and athletic defender on KB. He literally controlled KB. We will see that again. You can put 6'3-6'4" guys on AT, McD, Baddley, PJ and David because they aren't big or strong. Thus that leaves you with their best bigs to guard the five. And normally those guys are more athletic and stronger than our bigs. Heck SL big was 6'7" and completely out muscled us.

    We will see similar defensive schemes from Xavier, Creighton, and GT and perhaps SHU, Providence and Marquette.
     
  11. Insane Dawg

    Insane Dawg Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $12,637
    Is that thru the first seven games last year versus this year? I bet the rebound margin is going to get worse unless we improve our blocking out dramatically.
     
  12. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $2,589
    I mean that’s like 3 shots ever two games to two shots per game. It’s not nothing, but it’s also pretty negligible.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  13. schoops

    schoops Active Member

    Money:
    $842
    I was a little disappointed we didn't go back to a lineup with David and McDermott playing together in the second half. I think that lineup with Baldwin was the most effective in the first half...maybe because there was less of a size differential. I'd like to see us play 2 of David, McD, and soon Tucker for long stretches in the big east if we're red shooting the freshmen. 3 small guards with a small 4 it's just going to be giving up too much size most nights.

    Sent from my Nexus 6P using Butler Hoops mobile app
     
    Insane Dawg likes this.
  14. bumba

    bumba Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $7,463
    1 - Kelan was not a guard. He played the 3/4 most nights & was 6'7. Not 6'0 as is Baldwin.
    2 - St. Louis outrebounded us 41-38 according to the BU box score.
    3 - Fowler & Brunk have virtually identical rebounding numbers this year yet Brunk has almost doubled his scoring in less minutes. Actual total numbers. Not metrics or averages. Not percentages. Physically grabbing the ball & putting the ball inside the rim.
     
  15. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $2,589
    What did you want me or anyone else to take from this?


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  16. pjohnsto2003

    pjohnsto2003 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $4,779
    Not sure it bothered Thompson much offensively. Baldwin - yes. They just could not hit anything. Reminded me of the UConn game. Everyone just had a bad game.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  17. Insane Dawg

    Insane Dawg Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $12,637
    I re watched the game tonight and I'm not going to say anything more that has already been said. However four players stood out to me as playing well at both ends and those were AT, McD, Brunk and David and should not hang their heads. All four played hard on defense, rebounded when they could, hustled and had their heads in the game. The others should take hard looks in the mirror.
     
    harvesting and estar20dawg like this.
  18. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $2,589
    Yeah I mean I think the most criticism worthy aspect of the game was sitting Sean with foul trouble. That made no sense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
    Insane Dawg and harvesting like this.
  19. Hinkle

    Hinkle Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $7,035
    This stat is meaningless without the context of how many opportunities for defensive rebounds each team had. This is why rebounding rate matters and total rebounds doesn't.

    Ex: If Team A missed 50 shots and Team B had 35 defensive rebounds, and Team B missed 34 shots and Team A had 30 defensive rebounds, Team A crushed Team B at defensive rebounding despite the 35-30 margin.
     
  20. bumba

    bumba Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $7,463
    I don't know, that you're the kind of person who likes to argue with people when you don't actually know what you're talking about?

    It's time to put you back on ignore. I apologize for even taking you off.
     

Share This Page